Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[Arthur McGowan]

The term Theotokus (more literally translated into English as "God Bearer", than Mother of God) when it is insisted be used across the board implies that she is mother of that second "person" of the Trinity, instead of in more limited fashion ---be mother of the earthly incarnation of that "second person" of the Trinity.

Did you catch that distinction?

I certainly did catch that distinction. And you have fallen into precisely the heresy that the term "theotokos" was intended to combat: Namely, shattering the unity of the Incarnate Word.

It is precisely because JESUS CHRIST IS ONE PERSON--the Son--that Mary is NOT called "the mother of the human nature of Christ" or "the mother of the flesh of Christ" but "the Mother of God."

You have demonstrated once again that those who deny to Mary the title "Mother of God" eventually defend their position by denying that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures, that God became Man, that the Word became flesh, falling into one or more of the classic Christological heresies.

[Mark17]

You may be comfortable in your denomination. I am comfortable in my non denomination. Am I correct in assuming you can’t say you are totally 100% sure you are going to Heaven? If not, why not? I still want to know how you are going to bluff your way into Heaven. Are you planning to wait till you die, to see if you will be saved? Did you ever have this awful, horrible gut wrenching feeling in the pit of your stomach, that you might come out on the short end of the stick, and end up in fire and brimstone? It is entirely possible. OK, I guess.

[Mark17]

By the way TC, I forgot to mention, that my Berean like catholic friends were here today. We had a good time. You know what I was doing.

:-)

[BlueDragon]

I certainly did catch that distinction. And you have fallen into precisely the heresy that the term "theotokos" was intended to combat: Namely, shattering the unity of the Incarnate Word.

Fallen into heresy?

That is a false accusation.

The earthly incarnation of the 'second person' of the Trinity can quite easily enough (nowadays, anyway) be understood to not be divided as for the two natures. Not divided from time He was conceived within Mary, anyway. Prior to that time of conception -- you tell me -- did He have a 'human' nature? If so, then HOW?

I said nothing that is opposed to the concept of the 'two natures' being in inseparable unity. Along lines of the type of accusation you just made, I said only that Mary was not herself the (capital S) Source of Christ's divinity, with it rationally following that the Source of Christ's own divinity is from nowhere else other than His real & actual Father.

It is precisely because JESUS CHRIST IS ONE PERSON--the Son--that Mary is NOT called "the mother of the human nature of Christ" or "the mother of the flesh of Christ" but "the Mother of God."

I did not term the situation as Mary being restricted to being "mother of [only] the human nature of Christ", yet you put that within quotation marks as if I did. Don't be putting words in my mouth that I did not say...

I did however single her out as being the 'source' so to speak, of Jesus' human, physical nature. That is not the same as dividing the two natures in the womb ---where those two natures became as one inseparable (as far as I know).

It appears to me that you keep side-stepping how referring to Mary as say; mother of the Incarnate Christ, stops short of the necessary backpedaling one must engage in order to limit perceptions of the motherhood of Mary (in regards to her son, Jesus) be not only to the second person of the Trinity ~alone~ (not Mother of God the Father and The Holy Spirit too), but also only to the earthly incarnation of that same "second person" of the Trinity.

That can be so without there being anything like an automatic dissolving of the the two (fully human, and fully divine) natures.

You have demonstrated once again that those who deny to Mary the title "Mother of God" eventually defend their position by denying that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures, that God became Man, that the Word became flesh, falling into one or more of the classic Christological heresies.

I have demonstrated nothing of the sort just now, or even much previously, although there is a trap of sorts inherent with speaking of this issue.

People often are not careful and precise enough with their chosen wordings when they attempt to express from just where the two different 'natures' Christ is otherwise said to possess as His one entire indivisible nature and being come from. I suppose one could backtrack the human nature to having come from God too, through the human being known to us as the first 'man', Adam --in the first place-- BUT I JUST COVERED THAT ASPECT also.

So; for what you have just accused me of;
I've said nothing of the sort. Not even close. I've taken pains to avoid doing so.

You falsely accuse me amid continuance of yourself engaging in ranting and raving railing.

Something of that (cough-cough) nature has occurred ancillary to discussions of this type since Nestorius's position and argument was framed and decided upon prior to himself even arriving at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), and a century prior to that in regards to the violence, the persecution even unto death of those who tended towards agreement with bishop Arius ---committed by supporters of bishop Alexander (of Alexandria) and the then deacon Athanasius just prior to when the Council of Nicea officially commenced.

[Arthur McGowan]

Embedded in your multi-paragraph rant, are a couple of questions, which I will answer:

Mary, being a creature, is not the source or origin of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity.

The eternally-existing Second Person of the Trinity did not, from eternity, have a human nature. He began to have a human nature when he took flesh, and this occurred at the moment Mary conceived him in her womb.

Because Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God, it is accurate and appropriate to refer to her as the Mother of God.

[mitch5501]

A lot of this thread is reminding me of John Cleese...."BLASSSS....PHEEEEMER!"

I'll have a couple of pointy rocks,three flat ones and a packet of gravel.

Would be a lot less grief if we simply reffered to Mary as the Word does.

Hebrews 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

[Elsie]

It is you who have inserted words into scripture so you can try to come up with a premise that leads to your conclusion.

Please; show the jury WHERE I've done this.

---

All have sinned (except infants and nutcases) and come short of the glory of GOD.

[Elsie]

If you make an illogical argument against logic, you lose.

I'll remember this.

---

Was Mary a nutcase or an infant her entire life?

[Elsie]

Sounds a bit redundant

[Elsie]

Jesus isn't 1/3 of God. Jesus is all of God. The Father is all of God. The Holy Spirit is all of God.

HMMMmmm...

Matthew 24:36
"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

[Elsie]

God exists outside time and is omniscient.

Matthew 24:36
"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

---

om·nis·cient

ämˈniSHənt/

adjective

adjective: omniscient

knowing everything.

"the story is told by an omniscient narrator"

synonyms:

all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru"

[Elsie]

So did Jesus Christ have only 1/3 of a Father?

The sooner you get your "problem" looked into, the better.

Did Mary give birth to the Father and the Holy Spirit as well?

Rome; we have a problem.

Some are balking at the 'mother of god' thing you came up with.

[Elsie]

So did Jesus Christ have only 1/3 of a Father?

So; do you need TWO 'fathers' to have TWINS?

[Elsie]

there are not 30,000 different ways to interpret the Bible.

Our way!!!

No, OUR way!

[Elsie]

....indicating that the real person was kneeling before another real person....

....indicating a the real SINNER was kneeling before another real NON-SINNER....

See how easy Catholicism is!

[Elsie]

You mean like... awake?

[Elsie]

Without them, you wouldn't have the faintest idea of what it said.

Wanna bet; Elias?

---

Romans 11:3-4 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal.

[Elsie]

Without them, you wouldn't have the faintest idea of what it said.

Wanna bet; Elias?

---

Romans 11:3-4 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal.

[Elsie]

Without them, you wouldn't have the faintest idea of what it said.

Luke 19:40
"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the very stones will cry out."

[Elsie]

But how many times do Catholics have to go over this same ground with certain strains of protestants, it is so ridiculous, like arguing with an insane person.

It's an easier job than playing chess with pigeons; I hear.